YOU CAN SAY AN EVENT WAS MAGICAL OR A MIRACLE WITHOUT READING ANY DIVINE MESSAGE INTO IT

"A miracle occurs when the world is not left to itself, when something distinct from the natural order as a whole intrudes into it."  This is Mackie's definition.  It is more honest than Christian definitions which pretend to know exactly what is supposed to be doing them.  People prefer his definition to Hume's which called a miracle a violation of nature.  Yet “A miracle occurs when the world is not left to itself, when something distinct from the natural order as a whole WORKS on it" is even more preferable.  Intrudes implies something like an invasion as if the supernatural and nature ban each other and that is controversial.  Dropping the idea of intrude avoids the argument that nature cannot do miracles therefore they do not happen which is only true if there really is no supernatural.  But the supernatural is the question we need to examine.  We need to think about it undogmatically.

The Roman Catholic Church using its claimed infallibility at Vatican I, Session 3, The Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 3, “On Faith,” declared:

Canon 3 - If anyone says that divine revelation cannot be made credible by external signs, and that therefore men and women ought to be moved to faith only by each one’s internal experience or private inspiration: let him be anathema.

Canon 4 - If anyone says that all miracles are impossible, and that therefore all reports of them, even those contained in sacred scripture, are to be set aside as fables or myths; or that miracles can never be known with certainty, nor can the divine origin of the Christian religion be proved from them: let him be anathema.

From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm -

The word semeion means "sign", an appeal to intelligence, and expresses the purpose or final cause of the miracle. A miracle is a factor in the Providence of God over men. Hence the glory of God and the good of men are the primary or supreme ends of every miracle. This is clearly expressed by Christ in the raising of Lazarus (John 11), and the Evangelist says that Jesus, in working His first miracle at Cana, "manifested his glory" (John 2:11). Therefore the miracle must be worthy the holiness, goodness, and justice of God, and conducive to the true good of men. Hence they are not performed by God to repair physical defects in His creation, nor are they intended to produce, nor do they produce, disorder or discord; do they contain any element which is wicked, ridiculous, useless, or unmeaning. Hence they are not on the same plane with mere wonders, tricks works of ingenuity, or magic. The efficacy, usefulness, purpose of the work and the manner of performing it clearly show that it must be ascribed to Divine power. This high standing and dignity of the miracle is shown, e.g., in the miracles of Moses (Exodus 7-10), of Elias (1 Kings 18:21-38), of Eliseus (2 Kings 5). The multitudes glorified God at the cure of the paralytic (Matthew 9:8), of the blind man (Luke 18:43), at the miracles of Christ in general (Matthew 15:31, Luke 19:37), as at the cure of the lame man by St. Peter (Acts 4:21). Hence miracles are signs of the supernatural world and our connection with it.
 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

REPLY: ASSUMING GOD MADE ALL

All events recognized as miracles are events that deviate from the natural order.

Recognizing deviation from the natural order requires understanding that natural order exists.

Understanding natural order implies some awareness of the source of that order (i.e., God).

Therefore: Miracles cannot indicate God’s existence without prior recognition of non-miraculous natural order.

Therefore: The believer already thinks God runs nature so does not need a miracle to tell him that God is there.

The argument is about epistemology or how we come to beliefs.  In that light, miracles and non-miracles are not equally impressive.

Spiritually, however, miracles and non-miraculous events can be and should be equally significant. Both can inspire awe, devotion, and a sense of connection to God.

As miracles are about bringing us to God, supposedly, that means the epistemology does not matter.

The miracles are clearly superfluous and redundant.

In Romans 1, Paul states that creation reveals what God is like; it shows aspects of his nature as in a mirror. The chapter emphasizes that God has made his nature perceptible to everyone in general, not that nature itself proves God’s existence.  Augustine and Calvin argued that knowledge of God’s nature is, in some sense, innate. They interpreted Romans 1 to mean that idolaters are not condemned merely for doubting God’s existence, but for perceiving aspects of God’s nature and choosing to ignore them. Paul writes in Romans 1:28 that idolaters “did not see fit to recognize God,” implying it was their own responsibility. Verse 25 clarifies that idolatry involves preferring one’s own desires or conceptions over the truth about God.

The Bible’s insistence that we must “walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7) teaches that we should not rely on wonders or extraordinary experiences to know God. Faith should be grounded in trust in Jesus rather than in miraculous signs or sensory evidence.